UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ MOTIVATION IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION: INTEGRATION OF EXPECTANCY-VALUE MODEL AND SELF-EFFICACY THEORY
Paper presented at 2007 National Meeting of the American Education Research Association
The rapid rise of obesity among America school children could lead to future health problems such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes (Centers of Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 1997; U.S. Department of Health & Human Services [USDHHS], 1996, 2001). School physical education programs have the potential to increase physical activity levels for all children and therefore, can play a critical role in promoting public health (Sallis & McKenzie, 1991; Wallhead & Buckworth, 2004). However, research documents poor student motivation for active participation and low levels of engaged time in physical education. Thus understanding children’s motivational beliefs is crucial to physical educators and considered key to the
promotion of regular physical activity. In addition, given that children’s motivation to participate in physical education actually declines over the school years, with the decline greater for girls than for boys (Thomas, Lee, & Thomas, 2003), grade and gender differences should be taken into account when addressing children’ motivation in physical education.
As a central construct of motivation, expectancy beliefs represent the key idea that most individuals will not choose to do a task or continue to engage in a task when they expect to fail. It is important to note, however, that the influence of expectancy beliefs is only observed when adequate incentives (i.e., perceived importance, and outcome values) for behaviors are presented (Bandura, 1986; Pintrinch & Schunk, 1996). Therefore, when investigating children’s motivation in physical education, researchers must consider both expectancy beliefs and their corresponding
and incentives in some form. Among them, the expectancy-value model and self-efficacy theory have frequently been applied to explain how motivation influences achievement outcomes (e.g., choice, persistence, and performance) in sport and educational contexts (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Eccles et al., 1983). Beliefs about one’s perceived capability and incentives to participate in certain activities are central components of these two theories and have shown promise in
explaining students’ motivation and achievement in educational contexts. These two perspectives, however, have been examined separately in past work in physical education. Eccles and Wigfield (2002) have argued that there is a need for theoretical integration in the field, particularly with respect to models that incorporate expectancy beliefs and incentives. Therefore, for a better understanding of students’ motivation more research designed to integrate the two theoretical frameworks is needed.
EXPECTANCY-VALUE MODEL OF ACHIEVEMENT CHOICE
The expectancy-value model of achievement choice is proposed by Eccles and Wigfield and their colleagues (Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 1994; Wigfield, Eccles, & Rodriguez, 1998). According to this model, students’ achievement performance, the amount of effort exerted, persistence, and choice of achievement tasks are influenced by their expectancy- related beliefs and the values they attach to achievement tasks (Eccles et al., 1983). Xiang has been one of the first investigators to study the application of the expectancy-value model in physical education contexts (Xiang, Chen, & Bruene, 2005; Xiang, McBride, & Bruene, 2004; Xiang, McBride, & Bruene, in press; Xiang, McBride, & Guan, 2004; Xiang, McBride, Guan, & Solmon, 2003).
In the Eccles et al. model (1983), expectancy-related beliefs consist of both ability beliefs and expectancies for success. Ability beliefs are defined as individuals’ evaluations of their competence in different achievement tasks. Expectancies for success refer to individuals’ beliefs about how well they will do on an upcoming task and are closely related to their ability beliefs. Research focusing on students’ expectancy-related beliefs about different tasks in physical education demonstrates that this construct plays a crucial role in students’ motivation and influences their achievement outcomes such as performance in a running program (Xiang et al., 2005; Xiang, McBride, & Bruene, 2004; Xiang et al., in press).
Task Values
According to Eccles et al. (1983), task values are defined as incentives for engaging in different tasks. Attainment value (importance), intrinsic value (interest), and utility value (usefulness) comprise important aspects of task values. Importance concerns the personal importance of doing well on the task in terms of salient aspects of one’s self-schema and core personal values (e.g., achievement needs and competence needs). Interest refers to the enjoyment an individual gets from performing the task or the subjective interest the individual has for the task. Some researchers consider this component similar to the construct of personal interest (Pintrinch, Ryan, & Patrick, 1998). Usefulness refers to how a task fits into an individual’s current or future goals. In physical education, task values might be a critical dimension affecting achievement outcomes. For example, Xiang and her associates (Xiang, Mcbride, & Bruene, 2004; Xiang, Mcbride, & Guan, 2004; Xiang et al., 2003) have reported that school children’s intention for future participation in physical education or running was predicted by the values they
Within the expectancy-value model of achievement choice, expectancy-related beliefs and task values are assumed to be positively related to each other (Eccles et al., 1983; Eccles, Wigfield, & Shiefele, 1998). That is, individuals tend to attach more value to activities in which they do well and believe they are competent. Recent empirical research in physical education concerning the relationship between these two constructs support this postulation (Xiang, Mcbride, & Guan, 2004; Xiang et al., 2003). Further, researchers have reported that the more intrinsic aspects of task values (interest and importance) relate more closely to individuals’ expectancy-related beliefs in a running program (Xiang et al., 2005; Xiang et al., in press).
Similar to the predictive utility of these two constructs in academic domains (Eccles et al., 1983; Schunk, 1991; Stipek & Mac Iver, 1989), empirical studies in sport and physical education indicate that individuals’ expectancy-related beliefs predict their achievement performance and the amount of effort exerted, whereas task values predict both individuals’ actual and anticipated task choice, engagement/ persistence, and strategy use (Eccles & Harold, 1991; Cox & Whaley, 2004; Xiang et al., 2005; Xiang, Mcbride, & Bruene, 2004; Xiang et al., in press). For example, students’ expectancy-related beliefs made a significant contribution to the prediction of their one-mile running performance, while interest and importance were
contributors for intention to future participate in running (Xiang, Mcbride, & Bruene, 2004; Xiang et al., 2005; Xiang et al., in press).
SELF-EFFICACY THEORY
Self-efficacy theory comes from social cognitive theory and includes self-efficacy and outcome expectancy as major constructs (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Bandura and other researchers have applied this theory to a variety of domains, including mental health, health behavior, athletic performance, career choices, and academic achievement. This theory proposes that an
individual’s achievement behavior can be explained and predicted by self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. While these factors have been studied in a variety of contexts, relatively few studies have addressed children’s self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations in physical education (Chase, 1998, 2001; Goudas & Dermtizaki, 2004; Zakrajsek & Carnes, 1999).
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to beliefs about one’s capabilities to learn or perform behaviors at designated levels (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Generally, individuals who feel efficacious are more likely to perform better, try new behaviors, use effective strategies, expend more effort on those behaviors, and persevere longer when they encounter challenges. Particularly, higher self- efficacy would lead to greater persistence and better performance than lower self-efficacy. In physical education, children with higher self-efficacy tend to choose to participate in physical education, attribute failure to lack of effort, and have higher future self-efficacy than those with lower self-efficacy (Chase, 2001).
Outcome Expectancy
Outcome expectancy, being defined as incentives within self-efficacy theory, refers to a person’s beliefs concerning the likely outcomes of a behavior (Bandura, 1997; Rodgers &
Brawley, 1991). As the importance of an outcome and the degree of its influence may have a great deal of variability among individuals, it is crucial not to presume that outcomes could always act as incentives for motivated behavior (Maddux, 1995; Poag-DuCharme, 1993; Rodgers & Brawley, 1991, 1996). As a result, Maddux and his colleagues (1986) modified self- efficacy theory by adding outcome values as a component of this theory. Rodgers and Brawley (1991) further proposed that outcome expectancy is formed by the interaction of two factors, (a) outcome likelihood, which refers to the probability that a certain action will lead to a certain
outcome and (b) outcome values, which refer to the values the individual assigns to the possible outcomes of the behavior. This form of conceptualization is in line with the theoretical
foundation which highlighted the importance of incentives in influencing motivated behavior (Bandura, 1986, 1997), and therefore should have considerable value in examining students’ motivation and achievement outcomes.
Compared with much attention given to the role of self-efficacy within this theory, less attention has been paid to outcome expectancy. As expectations that an outcome will follow a given behavior, outcome expectancy does not focus on the achievement performance itself, but rather the result from the behavior. For example, taking physical education class three times per week is the behavior, while learning motor skills, learning to cooperate and improving physical conditioning are the outcomes. In terms of the application of this construct in physical education, at least one recent study (Gouda & Dermtizaki, 2004) has found that outcome expectancy was moderately related to students’ perceived usefulness of physical education and intrinsic motivation toward physical education.
According to Bandura (1997), there is no single relationship between self-efficacy and outcome expectancy, and “it depends on how tightly contingencies between actions and
outcomes are structured, either inherently or socially, in a given domain of functioning (p.23).” However, the positive relationship between self-efficacy and outcome expectancy is promising (Corcoran & Rutledge, 1989; Kirsch, 1982; Williams, Anderson, & Winnet, 2005). This is because the positive relationship suggests that either individuals who are more efficacious tend to value outcomes or increases in valuing outcomes make individuals more likely to perceive they are able to perform the behavior. Research focusing on the ways self-efficacy and outcome expectancy might operate together to impact motivation and achievement outcomes has
produced mixed findings, with some indicating that outcome expectancy accounted for little variance in motivational indices or behavior after self-efficacy was considered (Dzewaltowski, 1989; Dzewaltowski, Noble, & Shaw, 1990; Rovniak, Anderson, Winett, & Stephen, 2002), whereas others suggesting that both constructs were independent predictors of intentions and behavior in sport and physical activity (Dasharnais, Bouillon, & Godin, 1986; Poag-DuCharme, 1993; Rodgers, 1992; Rodgers & Brawley, 1993, 1996; Rodgers & Gauvin, 1998). Yet, thus far few studies have been conducted to investigate these two constructs simultaneously in physical education.